Matt, if the bug is IN a module, and the module is reused, the fix IS common. Say I have a function that doesn't check the limits of a parameter. If the fix is to do a limit check to keep a pointer calculation from goofing up, then the fix is contained within the module (or function) and would fix both platforms.
> -----Original Message----- > From: mariusrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:01 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe > > > even if some code was the same it doesn't mean the bug fix > would be the same . Sometimes a quick fix is modifying other > portions of the software than the faulty one, maybe even not > knowing where the fault is , just patch something until it > works. For example, something hangs, we don't know why, put a > timeout on it , problem solved although the cause still exists. > > Matt Tudor, MSEE > http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:38 AM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe > > > > I was thinking about this a bit more today. This evening > Terry Creer > > discovered a 'new' bug. Subsequently, a few of us confirmed > it in DXP. > > Here's an interesting perspective: It's probably clear that DXP has > > some if not a lot of code reuse from 99SE. If we find a bug in DXP, > > you know it will have very high priority. If it turns out > that a bug > > is fixed in a module that was reused, that would be a FREE > fix for the > > 99SE code base. A service pack might move forward for 99SE without > > them even trying! > > > > Neat huh? > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:20 AM > > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > > Cc: JaMi Smith > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > ~ ~ ~ > > > > > > > Not to jump all over you, but how do you suppose Altium is > > > supposed to > > > > fix bugs if we don't report them? > > > > > > > > > Excellent point Tony, > > > > > > But I think that there are actually some other priorities too! > > > > > > I think that the first thing we have to do is pull together as a > > > group, and "poll" the major players out there on just > what we want > > > to do, and how we can effectively go about doing it. > > > > > > I think that it really is clear that we want and need a > Protel 99 SE > > > SP7. > > > > > > I also think that we all must realize that Altiums priorities are > > > with DXP now, and we are not going to get very far if we > attempt to > > > draw resources away from DXP, which I do not believe that > we have to > > > do. > > > > > > I think that we have crossed the major hurdle that was in > place in > > > that most people out there now appear that they are > really ready to > > > admit that Protel 99 SE is if fact a software package > that has some > > > real serious bugs out there which are causing some real stability > > > issues and problems, and is in fact flaky, and that > Protel / Altium > > > has never appeared willing to admit to any of this, nor > have some of > > > it's staunchest supporters. > > > > > > But the facts appear to speak for themselves. > > > > > > Protel / Altium will just have to face the facts. > > > > > > I think that if Protel /Altium are faced with a unified > front from > > > their customers and users, I think that we actually can > get a lot of > > > things done. > > > > > > I think that another major issue and hurdle is also about to fall > > > into place, or actually out of the way, and that is the issue of > > > DXP. Many are ready to abandon Protel 99 SE in order to > jump on the > > > DXP band wagon, thinking that all of their software problems and > > > shortcommings will go away once we get past DXP SP1 and > learn how to > > > operate DXP. > > > > > > What many of those people do not understand is that even > if all of > > > the code was rewritten, by an entirely new team of > programmers, the > > > environment and mentality that allowed this to happen > with Protel 99 > > > SE is still very much entrenched at Protel / Altium, and > that means > > > that the same thing will happen with DXP, unless the > customers and > > > users confront Protel / Altium and let them know that this type of > > > programming and lack of support cannot be allowed to continue. > > > > > > I don't think that it is going to take much to convince > most people > > > out there that unless we as a group demand more from Protel / > > > Altium, we are simply not going to get it. > > > > > > Many of those people will soon find that the current > attentiveness > > > of Protel / Altium management in the DXP forum and their > willingness > > > in trying to get things worked out with DXP, is only a temporary > > > situation brought about by the need to start collecting annual > > > renewals for ATS in just a little over 2 weeks now, in an > attempt to > > > head off a PR and Financial Disaster, not to mention > potential legal > > > issues. > > > > > > As soon as they can convince enough people that DXP is really > > > working, so that they can start collecting revenue from > ATS as well > > > as new DXP sales, we will see that support in the forum > evaporate, > > > and we will be in exactly in the same position that we > have been in > > > with Protel 99 SE for the past however many years. > > > > > > And it is not even as simple as that, not only since any new code > > > base not only has its own new problems, but not every > thing in DXP > > > is in fact new, which means that there may be some old problems > > > sneaking into the mix. > > > > > > So as I was saying, I think that we need to organize > ourselves and > > > come to a consensus as to our direction, and if we cannot get > > > everyone's support, we can at least request that everyone > ackwiess > > > [sic?] to not interfere with an otherwise unified attempt to get > > > things done. > > > > > > I then think that we need to sort out just exactly what > it is that > > > we think we want to accomplish, and go from there. > > > > > > Then I would say then comes the compilation of the real bug list. > > > > > > One of the things that I have tried to make very clear, > but I am not > > > too sure that I have been able to do, is to let everyone > know that I > > > do not expect Protel / Altium to have to continue to > support Protel > > > 99 SE. > > > > > > I am not asking for that. > > > > > > What I am asking for is to have Protel / Altium make an effort co > > > meet its customers and users in the middle ground somewhere, and > > > make one last effort to fix some of the remaining problems with > > > Protel 99 SE so that it can continue to be used, without > some of its > > > current problems, by all of its current customers and users, at > > > least up and to the point that DXP is in fact a real and viable > > > product. > > > > > > Then if Protel / Altium wants to abandon Protel 99 SE, since they > > > obviously appear to feel that they cannot develop it any further, > > > then so be it. > > > > > > But actually, I really I believe that with one more Service Pack, > > > Protel 99 SE could be transformed into a very stable, useable, > > > middle of the road product that they could continue to > sell just as > > > is, for many years to come, just as it is, with out any new > > > development. > > > > > > More importantly, those customers and users who have bought into > > > Protel 99 SE relatively recently, but are just not ready for > > > whatever reason to step up to DXP, will be able to > continue using a > > > much more stable version of the Protel 99 SE product they > paid good > > > money for, rather than being totally abandoned by Protel / Altium > > > with Protel 99 SE left in it's current unstable condition. > > > > > > At a very minimum, a concerted effort at this time by all > customers > > > and users to really attempt to get to the bottom of some of these > > > bugs, now that we have gotten past our first hurdle > above, will at > > > the very least leave those people who continue to use > Protel 99 SE > > > with a fairly well researched bug list and understanding > of pitfalls > > > and things not to do if you do not want it to crash. > > > > > > First and foremost, most of us have jobs to do, and projects that > > > must get finished, so I think that one of the important > things that > > > we must do is to respect each other's time constraints. > > > > > > This means nothing will happen overnight. > > > > > > But it also means that if we all do a little, then we > really can get > > > things accomplished. > > > > > > That said, I nominate you all for the SP7 committee, and > I will now > > > go to bed. > > > > > > JaMi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > > > ********** > > > * Tracking #: F11BB67F7999E64DA64E25752BE42D35403D8DC6 > > > * > > > ************************************************************** > > > ********** > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
